Yet another poll showing a low point for Bush, California's Field poll has him at 39% approval, and a whopping 54% dissaproval. 57% of Californians say we are on the wrong track...you have to go back to 1992 to see numbers that bad...who was president back then???

Here is a choice quote for those GOP faithful that are convinced by their 'secret sources' that California is in their column this year

Quote

UC Berkeley political science Professor Bruce Cain said that in the state with the most electoral votes, 55, the president's approval ratings all but count out a stated GOP goal of mounting a challenge in the state. "It makes the prospects of an election (win) in California, which were already remote, more like remote squared,'' Cain said.

Whalen said the president is "on a negative trend, which is usually fatal in your last year (in office)." Now "the president must find a way to turn around the negative news in Iraq,'' he said. "But can the president end the bad news cycle by himself -- or does he need an event beyond his control to do it?''

“They cheated us again and again, made decisions behind our back, presenting us with completed facts. That’s the way it was with the expansion of NATO in the East, with the deployment of military infrastructure at our borders. They always told us the same thing: 'Well, this doesn't concern you.'" -Vladimir Putin

Bush lost by 1.3 million votes last election, prodiminantly in the districts around San Francisco and Los Angeles. Through recent trends and events over the last four years, I think Bush should be able to pick up an additional 700K votes through these areas. Here is why:

- first off, an incumbant has the advantage of name recognition and familiarity. Though this is sometimes a negative, with how divided the populous is right now, I don't think it will impact Bush much.- The court cases between FERC and the private power suppliers are coming to an end, and closing the chapter on the energy crisis from 2 years ago. Though not all the funds are being recovered by California, the financial impact is being reduced and new regulations are coming into place to help avoid future cases.- "Arnold" (multiple subjects): popularity. His popularity has brought a Republican back to the governors seat. With how bad Davis' popularity was at the time he was removed from office, some Independents and others who would normally vote Democrat will probably switch to voting Republican this election.-"Arnold": finances. He has done a good job of avoiding tax hikes across the state in order to pay of their deficit. If he and Bush can come to an agreement on federal funding, this will be another victory for Arnold. In addition, this will be a boost for Bush for being cooperative and "concerned" about California's well-being.-"Arnold": campaigning. Arnold has yet to do any campaigning for Bush in the state (for multiple reasons). Though they are two different forms of Republicans, Arnold's spokesperson said he will be making pitches for the President as the election nears, though most likely not together. This, however, will help tie Arnold's success with Bush, giving his a more positive appearance.-With all the contraversy over gay marriage, we have seen a ground swell in the silent majority lately who are opposed to the notion of legalizing gay marraige nationwide. Many of these protests have occurred within San Francisco of all places. With Bush being firm on position of not supporting gay marriage, and Kerry wavering back and forth on the topic, Bush should pick up some more votes here.-The economy is recovering quickly this year, where some economists are thinking that instead of fearing another recession, it is rapid inflation that might be on our horizon. However, there are signs that corporations have gone back to hiring. As soon as it becomes more obvious that the job market has recovered (there is a lag between actual economic action and people's perception of that fact), Kerry's platform of "Bush is bad for the economy" will become irrelavant.-When things in Iraq begin to calm down (for Iraqi's sake, I hope it is soon), we will begin to see the polls shift back over the 50% mark for Bush. We have seen that as Bush's poll figure slips, Kerry's does not rise. Instead, Bush's figures move in relationship to news from Iraq. Any positive movement overseas will be reflected domestically.-Florida 2000: As we saw from the last election, voter activity was influenced by news coverage of the Eastern states as their polls closed and figures were being released. I recall a reporter in Oklahoma who was observing exit polls that as Gore picked up states, more Republican's came out to vote, and vise versa. With how close the election was, I expect the Pro-Bush crowd to come out in force to ensure that there isn't another close call.

*Note, I sure hope the media learned its lesson from the last election, and will hold back on releasing polling data until a) they are sure there is a clear winner in that state, and b) most polls across the US have closed. Releasing polling information while other polls are still open taints the process and disenfrancises voters on the West Coast.*

I have a few more points to make, but I need to get to work. I'll add them this evening when I get home. Just a quick summary though: It won't take a whole lot for Bush to pick up the extra votes needed this year to win California.

Again, this is just my observations. No one will know for sure until the polls close as to which way the state does go. It's too early to say definitely if Kerry or Bush will carry California, but my surprise prediction is that Bush will.

Logged

Attention bloggers: Join SeededBuzz and gain access to thousands of new readers. Simply paste a link and summary of your article for community members to link back to, drawing more activity to your site. Membership is FREE!

Bush lost by 1.3 million votes last election, prodiminantly in the districts around San Francisco and Los Angeles. Through recent trends and events over the last four years, I think Bush should be able to pick up an additional 700K votes through these areas. Here is why:

- first off, an incumbant has the advantage of name recognition and familiarity. Though this is sometimes a negative, with how divided the populous is right now, I don't think it will impact Bush much.- The court cases between FERC and the private power suppliers are coming to an end, and closing the chapter on the energy crisis from 2 years ago. Though not all the funds are being recovered by California, the financial impact is being reduced and new regulations are coming into place to help avoid future cases.- "Arnold" (multiple subjects): popularity. His popularity has brought a Republican back to the governors seat. With how bad Davis' popularity was at the time he was removed from office, some Independents and others who would normally vote Democrat will probably switch to voting Republican this election.-"Arnold": finances. He has done a good job of avoiding tax hikes across the state in order to pay of their deficit. If he and Bush can come to an agreement on federal funding, this will be another victory for Arnold. In addition, this will be a boost for Bush for being cooperative and "concerned" about California's well-being.-"Arnold": campaigning. Arnold has yet to do any campaigning for Bush in the state (for multiple reasons). Though they are two different forms of Republicans, Arnold's spokesperson said he will be making pitches for the President as the election nears, though most likely not together. This, however, will help tie Arnold's success with Bush, giving his a more positive appearance.-With all the contraversy over gay marriage, we have seen a ground swell in the silent majority lately who are opposed to the notion of legalizing gay marraige nationwide. Many of these protests have occurred within San Francisco of all places. With Bush being firm on position of not supporting gay marriage, and Kerry wavering back and forth on the topic, Bush should pick up some more votes here.-The economy is recovering quickly this year, where some economists are thinking that instead of fearing another recession, it is rapid inflation that might be on our horizon. However, there are signs that corporations have gone back to hiring. As soon as it becomes more obvious that the job market has recovered (there is a lag between actual economic action and people's perception of that fact), Kerry's platform of "Bush is bad for the economy" will become irrelavant.-When things in Iraq begin to calm down (for Iraqi's sake, I hope it is soon), we will begin to see the polls shift back over the 50% mark for Bush. We have seen that as Bush's poll figure slips, Kerry's does not rise. Instead, Bush's figures move in relationship to news from Iraq. Any positive movement overseas will be reflected domestically.-Florida 2000: As we saw from the last election, voter activity was influenced by news coverage of the Eastern states as their polls closed and figures were being released. I recall a reporter in Oklahoma who was observing exit polls that as Gore picked up states, more Republican's came out to vote, and vise versa. With how close the election was, I expect the Pro-Bush crowd to come out in force to ensure that there isn't another close call.

*Note, I sure hope the media learned its lesson from the last election, and will hold back on releasing polling data until a) they are sure there is a clear winner in that state, and b) most polls across the US have closed. Releasing polling information while other polls are still open taints the process and disenfrancises voters on the West Coast.*

I have a few more points to make, but I need to get to work. I'll add them this evening when I get home. Just a quick summary though: It won't take a whole lot for Bush to pick up the extra votes needed this year to win California.

Again, this is just my observations. No one will know for sure until the polls close as to which way the state does go. It's too early to say definitely if Kerry or Bush will carry California, but my surprise prediction is that Bush will.

Bush lost by 1.3 million votes last election, prodiminantly in the districts around San Francisco and Los Angeles. Through recent trends and events over the last four years, I think Bush should be able to pick up an additional 700K votes through these areas. Here is why:

- first off, an incumbant has the advantage of name recognition and familiarity. Though this is sometimes a negative, with how divided the populous is right now, I don't think it will impact Bush much.- The court cases between FERC and the private power suppliers are coming to an end, and closing the chapter on the energy crisis from 2 years ago. Though not all the funds are being recovered by California, the financial impact is being reduced and new regulations are coming into place to help avoid future cases.- "Arnold" (multiple subjects): popularity. His popularity has brought a Republican back to the governors seat. With how bad Davis' popularity was at the time he was removed from office, some Independents and others who would normally vote Democrat will probably switch to voting Republican this election.-"Arnold": finances. He has done a good job of avoiding tax hikes across the state in order to pay of their deficit. If he and Bush can come to an agreement on federal funding, this will be another victory for Arnold. In addition, this will be a boost for Bush for being cooperative and "concerned" about California's well-being.-"Arnold": campaigning. Arnold has yet to do any campaigning for Bush in the state (for multiple reasons). Though they are two different forms of Republicans, Arnold's spokesperson said he will be making pitches for the President as the election nears, though most likely not together. This, however, will help tie Arnold's success with Bush, giving his a more positive appearance.-With all the contraversy over gay marriage, we have seen a ground swell in the silent majority lately who are opposed to the notion of legalizing gay marraige nationwide. Many of these protests have occurred within San Francisco of all places. With Bush being firm on position of not supporting gay marriage, and Kerry wavering back and forth on the topic, Bush should pick up some more votes here.-The economy is recovering quickly this year, where some economists are thinking that instead of fearing another recession, it is rapid inflation that might be on our horizon. However, there are signs that corporations have gone back to hiring. As soon as it becomes more obvious that the job market has recovered (there is a lag between actual economic action and people's perception of that fact), Kerry's platform of "Bush is bad for the economy" will become irrelavant.-When things in Iraq begin to calm down (for Iraqi's sake, I hope it is soon), we will begin to see the polls shift back over the 50% mark for Bush. We have seen that as Bush's poll figure slips, Kerry's does not rise. Instead, Bush's figures move in relationship to news from Iraq. Any positive movement overseas will be reflected domestically.-Florida 2000: As we saw from the last election, voter activity was influenced by news coverage of the Eastern states as their polls closed and figures were being released. I recall a reporter in Oklahoma who was observing exit polls that as Gore picked up states, more Republican's came out to vote, and vise versa. With how close the election was, I expect the Pro-Bush crowd to come out in force to ensure that there isn't another close call.

*Note, I sure hope the media learned its lesson from the last election, and will hold back on releasing polling data until a) they are sure there is a clear winner in that state, and b) most polls across the US have closed. Releasing polling information while other polls are still open taints the process and disenfrancises voters on the West Coast.*

I have a few more points to make, but I need to get to work. I'll add them this evening when I get home. Just a quick summary though: It won't take a whole lot for Bush to pick up the extra votes needed this year to win California.

Again, this is just my observations. No one will know for sure until the polls close as to which way the state does go. It's too early to say definitely if Kerry or Bush will carry California, but my surprise prediction is that Bush will.

and you are completely ignoring the fact that California is a very socially liberal state that includes many people who will not vote for Bush based on that alone. I mean seriously, you're basically saying that lots of Bay Area voters are going to change their votes to Bush based on the fact that economy isn't too bad anymore. Give me a break. Bush will probably do even worse in the Bay Area this year due to rampant ABBism.

And it doesn't matter one iota how popular Arnold is, Gov. Henry in Oklahoma is according to recent polls very popular, but that doesn't mean Kerry has a snowball's chance in hell of winning Oklahoma. Tony Knowles was a popular governor in Alaska and Pataki was popular in 2000 yet Gore still got over 60% in his state. A popular governor doesn't matter in a state that's out of reach, and that's the case here.

I know historically, or at least in the modern era, presidents are almost always re-elected by wide margins or kicked out by wide margins, but I think right now that this re-election will be an anomaly. It's looking like things are going to line up closely to 2000. Cali is safe Kerry.

We shall see, Red. That's the best thing about predicitions.... it all comes down to what happens in November. I wouldn't count Bush out yet. In the poll that was released today, 65% of those voting for Kerry are a part of the ABB crowd. However, 23% of them said their vote may change.

If you use last elections numbers as a guideline, Kerry would have 5,861,203 votes. Now 65% are voting under ABB, so that's 3,809,781. If 23% are open to changing their vote (most likely based off of any progress in the Middle East), you have 876,250 votes. Bush only needs 700,000 votes (based off of last years figures) to take the state. So let's sit back and watch what unfolds over the next 5 months.

Logged

Attention bloggers: Join SeededBuzz and gain access to thousands of new readers. Simply paste a link and summary of your article for community members to link back to, drawing more activity to your site. Membership is FREE!

Bush would need almost 80% of those open to changing their vote therefore, and that is very unlikely. All that proves is that it's entirely outside the realm of possibility of Bush winning California assuming everything goes perfect from now on and he wins in a landslide. It's hardly enough to say that Bush is favored in the state.

if anyone is willing to bet real money that CA is going for Bush I will take that bet any day.

tempting, but I'll pass.

He'll do better than he did here last time, but Kerry will likely win. If unemployment rises, bush gets the blame, if unemployment falls, Schwarzennegger gets the credit. People have selective memories like that. Especially people out here. Too bad.

-ABB-More immigration since 2000, Hispanic population is up-Conservatives have been leaving, fleeing to states in the interior west.

according to what I've read it is "moderates" that are moving to places like AZ, NV, and UT, not "conservatives" but maybe we're just using different words to convey the same meaning. In anycase, most folks I watch late night say Kerry will win out here, but make no mistake: The GOP has seen the registration gap narrow, and has made inroads among the spanish-speaking community out here. Don't be surprised if the Bush-Kerry difference is smaller than the Gore-Bush difference was in 2000. Also, I'll say again that GWB ought to be spending more time and money out here in an effort to help statewide GOP candidates and help out in competitive house races. I believe he will. He will not make the same mistake his father made in 1992.

-ABB-More immigration since 2000, Hispanic population is up-Conservatives have been leaving, fleeing to states in the interior west.

according to what I've read it is "moderates" that are moving to places like AZ, NV, and UT, not "conservatives" but maybe we're just using different words to convey the same meaning. In anycase, most folks I watch late night say Kerry will win out here, but make no mistake: The GOP has seen the registration gap narrow, and has made inroads among the spanish-speaking community out here. Don't be surprised if the Bush-Kerry difference is smaller than the Gore-Bush difference was in 2000. Also, I'll say again that GWB ought to be spending more time and money out here in an effort to help statewide GOP candidates and help out in competitive house races. I believe he will. He will not make the same mistake his father made in 1992.

Barring anything major happening from now & Election Day I see California going to Kerry by about the same it went to Gore by. May be slighly lower or slighlty higher, but in the 9-14% range is my guess

Barring anything major happening from now & Election Day I see California going to Kerry by about the same it went to Gore by. May be slighly lower or slighlty higher, but in the 9-14% range is my guess

I say 10%

Logged

“They cheated us again and again, made decisions behind our back, presenting us with completed facts. That’s the way it was with the expansion of NATO in the East, with the deployment of military infrastructure at our borders. They always told us the same thing: 'Well, this doesn't concern you.'" -Vladimir Putin

I think I have trouble with these predictions, but like Boss Tweed, if I interpret correctly, I'd guess a clear Kerry victory here but with a smaller margin than Gore had. This I base primarily on the gotv effort by republicans in this state and on the narrowing of the registration gap in the 2000-2003 period by about 2 percentage points. It is also the case that the patronization of hispanics by the democrats hasn't played as well as the patronization of blacks by democrats. I have some ideas about why, but it is a bit involved.

First off, if Bush is going to win any more votes in California, it won't be in the San Francisco Bay Area. I am also under the impression that California has been tending further left in the past four years. I believe that, in an election as close as that of 2000, Kerry will take this state with thirteen to eighteen points over Bush.

Many people have cited the voter registration statistics as evidence to support their beliefs. It is true that the percentage of Democrats in California has fallen 2% since October 2000, and the percentage of Republicans has risen slightly. (All of this is available here: http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/elections_u.htm)

However, this ignores the real question: where do these non-partisans stand, politically? If you take a close look at the voter registration statistics and the actual results in 2000, it becomes clear that the non-partisans who voted in 2000 are overwhelmingly left-leaning in their beliefs. This is, again, confirmed by the latest Field Poll, released today (http://field.com/fieldpollonline/subscribers/RLS2114.pdf). Kerry leads Bush 57-22 among independents, with 14% undecided. This, before Kerry has even started making his case for President in California.

While we cannot make any *conclusive* statements about the new non-partisans in this state, these are important things to keep in mind.

Other things about California:

There are also serious factors to take into consideration when dealing with such statistics. First off: the wealthiest and the most educated tend to vote the most often, whereas the poor tend to vote the least. The San Francisco Bay Area has just 7 million residents, but it is an extremely important area in California as it is very affluent, and is the most educated metro area in the United States (by graduate degrees/capita). As everyone should know by now, SF Bay Area residents prefer Kerry over Bush by a 3 to 1 margin. (This is reflected in the Field Poll above, with Californians with post-grad degrees preferring Kerry over Bush by a 67% to 23% margin.) The Bay Area, which experiences higher turnout than the rest of California in a normal presidential election cycle, should see even higher turnout this time around - especially with the virulent anti-Bush attitudes here. This will be a key factor in November.

Further causes for GOP concern:

- The Field Poll registered 46% to 45% Kerry-Bush in an area labeled "Orange/San Diego." (Both Orange and San Diego Counties are, historically, bastions of conservatism and make up THE foundation of any GOP effort in this state. Any erosion of this is an extremely negative signal for the GOP.)

- High-growth areas in California, like the Central Valley, are showing signs of GOP support dilution as they grow. Kerry leads Bush 44-43 in that crucial region as well.

- Arnold remains quite popular in CA, with a 60% approval rating. He has, however, been distancing himself from Bush, and it is my sense that he will not campaign for him. (Also, ask yourself why Bush didn't campaign for Arnold in September 2003.)

To MODU:

Most of the people you saw protesting the gay marriages in San Francisco were flown in from Kansas and other parts of the Midwest and the South simply because there are so few people in this area who vehemently object to them. The San Francisco residents I met outside City Hall were handing out roses to the married couples.

The economy in California remains a big topic, especially in Silicon Valley. As we saw today, the economic numbers are not all rosy and it is my sense that the mediocre-to-good employment numbers we saw from March to April in the US will not continue. Note that the economic outlook in Silicon Valley remains poor, and the latest polls show the area tending even further anti-Bush against 2000. (I would say liberal, but this area is only socially liberal. It is fiscally anti-tax/centrist. The fact that Bush's tax cuts have not brought (bought?) him traction in Silicon Valley should be worrisome.)

"In Silicon Valley, the most important economic region of the state, Bush's approval rating has dropped precipitously from a year ago. His overall approval rating is 29-61% today, compared to 40-48% a year ago. And his handling of the situation with Iraq, which was 45-45% a year ago, stands at 25-65% today. Also in Silicon Valley, Bush's rating on handling of the economy worsened in March to 27-64% from 28-61% in January."

Santa Clara County, in the heart of Silicon Valley, voted in favor of Gore over Bush by 60.7% to 34.4%. However it is voter-rich, so Bush still received about 190,000 votes. A further loss of 75 to 100,000 votes in that county and the heavily-populated surrounding region, completely possible based on the latest poll of that area exclusively, would not be helpful to his overall chances in this state.

And finally, as I said above, I do believe that California is tending left. The affluent and educated regions are tending even further left as they become even more affluent and educated. (See Marin County returns over the past 30 years. Two hundred fifty thousand residents, and the median home price has risen above $700,000 for the first time ever. It has also grown increasingly Democratic/non-partisan, and decreasingly Republican since 2000. I believe that it is now the most affluent county in the US overall, and third based on income.) Los Angeles County has also become significantly more affluent since 2000 - strong election returns from this region should be crucial to Democrats in future elections. The socially liberal climate that permeates this state is driving away many conservatives. Living in California has also become quite unafforadable, and many residents are moving to the Midwest and the Southeast - particularly from the Bay Area and Los Angeles County. Finally, high-growth regions are becoming less strongly GOP as they expand, and are, in effect, reducing their impact.

Françoise

P.S. If the GOP is looking for support in CA, it will have to wait for a few more election cycles. As Latinos/Hispanics become more affluent, they will tend slightly more to the right, as they are socially conservative (see abortion and gay marriage.) However, less than ten percent of Latino/Hispanic voters currently identify these issues as important when voting. Healthcare, social welfare, and education take precedence for the time being. But even in this case, I must note that the younger generation of Latinos who are born into upper-middle class families are adapting to the socially liberal climate in which they find themselves surrounded.